Don't be nasty to criminals! Knife thug walks free because judge was 'rude, harsh and sarcastic'

A thug has walked free from court after his conviction for knife possession was overturned because the trial judge was ‘rude’ to him.

Koenya Tedjame-Mortty, 32, had been found guilty by a jury after being caught by police driving around London armed with knives.

But in a decision that has caused outrage, judges at the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on the basis that the judge in his case was ‘rude, harsh and sarcastic’, leaving the villain too ‘unsettled’ to give ‘credible evidence’ in his own defence.

During his trial at Kingston Crown Court last year, Judge Fergus
Mitchell reprimanded the career criminal for intimidating a boy doing
work experience at the hearing.

The judge told him to ‘shut his mouth and listen’, asking him how
dare he speak to the boy, who had complained of being accosted outside
court and being stared at in an ‘unpleasant and threatening manner’.

The circuit judge, who summoned the defendant before him to
investigate a possible contempt of court, also threatened to revoke his
bail shortly before he was called to give evidence in his defence.

Share this article

Share

At the end of a short trial, the thug was found guilty of two counts
of possession of a bladed article after the jury heard he had been
driving the car with a kitchen knife and a craft knife in the back.

He was handed a seven-month suspended sentence and ordered to carry
out 100 hours of unpaid community work on November 19. But
Tedjame-Mortty immediately appealed, saying the exchange with the judge
had left him feeling ‘anxious and shaken’.

This week, three Court of Appeal judges agreed with him, saying they
could not rule out the possibility the ‘quality’ of his evidence was
affected by Judge Mitchell’s ‘wholly inappropriate’ intervention.

'We do not think that we can safely exclude the possibility that he
may have given his evidence less credibly than he would have done if the
judge had dealt with the matter appropriately.

'There is no reason why a reprimand in a measured tone at the end of the day would not have been sufficient.

'We do not want this judgment to be regarded as
requiring judges to treat defendants with kid gloves before they give
evidence.

'The difference in this case is that the quality of the
defendant's evidence could have been affected by the conduct on the part
of the judge, which was wholly inappropriate'

- Mr
Justice Keith

Mr Justice Keith castigated Judge Mitchell for raising his voice,
using an ‘unpleasant tone’ and being ‘rude, harsh and sarcastic’ to the
serial offender, who has a string of convictions for drink-driving,
among other offences.

The landmark ruling has appalled MPs and former home secretaries who
fear it will set a dangerous precedent, forcing the judiciary to ‘bow
and scrape to career criminals’.

Last night there were mounting calls for the extraordinary decision
to be reversed at the Supreme Court after appeal judges rejected
requests by the Crown Prosecution Service for a re-trial.

The perverse case comes on the back of a contentious declaration this
week by leading Appeal Court justices who said victims of crime should
have no say over what happens to criminals, as some just want revenge.

Yesterday former home secretary David Blunkett said the decision sent
an alarming message about attitudes to knife crime. He told the Daily
Mail: ‘It is astonishing that the appeal judges did not agree to a
mistrial, which would have allowed the case to be re-heard, rather than
overturning the conviction.

‘Whatever the harsh treatment by the original judge, the defendant
clearly had a case to answer and in the interests of justice and, in
particular, the avoidance of the wrong sort of messages getting out on
carrying knives, the Crown Prosecution Service was right to ask for the
trial to be re-run.

‘The public do begin to wonder whose side the law is on.’

David Green, of think-tank Civitas, said the case had set a dangerous
precedent for the judiciary. ‘It’s accepted that judges have to have a
judicial temperament. They have to manage the proceedings and if someone
is intimidating a young boy, it’s their duty to say something about
it.’

In his defence, Tedjame-Mortty, from Feltham, Middlesex, claimed that
he had the kitchen and craft knife to open paint tins. The father was
wearing a paper suit over his clothes when he was stopped in his car by
police in Hammersmith, west London, on October 21, 2009. Moments before
he gave evidence at his trial on October 21 last year, Judge Mitchell
admonished Tedjame-Mortty for speaking to the boy, who had been in the
public gallery.

Lawyers for the defendant argued his conviction was unsafe because he
was too upset by what the judge had said to give a ‘credible’ account
to jurors. Mr Justice Keith, sitting with Lord Justice Toulson and Judge
John Bevan QC, granted the appeal on Tuesday, saying Judge Mitchell’s
‘inappropriate behaviour’ was bound to have left him ‘unsettled’.

Mr Justice Keith also ruled out the possibility of a re-trial on the
grounds that it would not be in the public interest for Tedjame-Mortty
to face a jury for a second time.

But the senior judge faced severe criticism from MPs. Philip Davies,
Tory MP for Shipley, said: ‘It’s a prime example of the shambles of this
country’s criminal justice system and how we have got the establishment
in the judicial system on the side of the criminals.

‘I just hope that this judge is regarded as an exceptional buffoon
and this does not have an impact on other judges’ behaviour.’

David Davies, Tory MP for Monmouth, said: ‘It’s an absolute outrage.
The effect of this decision is the judiciary will be expected to bow and
scrape to criminals.’

Last night the Crown Prosecution Service said it had not decided whether to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision.

The Judicial Communications Office said: ‘In a case of this nature
the burden of proof is on the defendant to demonstrate he had good
reason for possessing the knives; his evidence was therefore all the
more important.

‘The Court of Appeal ruled that the consequences of the trial judge’s
remarks to the defendant, coupled with his unexpected decision to
revoke the defendant’s bail without giving his counsel the opportunity
to make representations about that just before he was due to give
evidence, would have unsettled the defendant and may have resulted in
the defendant not being able to do justice to his case.’

Mr Justice no-nonsense...

A circuit judge with more than 14 years’ experience, Judge Fergus Mitchell is well regarded for his no-nonsense attitude.

He once threatened to jail an entire squad of 20 detectives after vital evidence went missing.

A group of senior officers from the South East Regional Crime Squad wrote to the Lord Chancellor’s department asking him to rebuke the judge for making the threat during a trial of five men accused of conspiracy to supply cannabis in June 1996.

The case was abandoned when a police log of surveillance operations disappeared after the defence requested its presentation for forensic examination. The officers demanded a transcript of his remarks, but the Lord Chancellor’s department rejected any criticism, telling them that judges were independent and could not be disciplined.

Born in 1947, the son of a QC and a JP, Judge Mitchell was educated at Tiffin Boys School, Kingston upon Thames, and was called to the Bar in 1971.

A year later he married Sally Maureen Capper, daughter of police officer Sir Derrick Capper, who was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal.

In 1993 he became a Recorder and was made a circuit judge in 1996.

When not in court, the judge enjoys opera and spending time at his farm in Aveyron, France.

...And the judge who pulled rank

As a High Court judge for a decade, Mr Justice Keith has never shied away from controversy.

Last year there was public outcry over lenient sentences he handed to two brothers who tortured a pair of boys.

In a case that shocked the nation, the brothers, aged 10 and 11, subjected their victims, aged nine and 11, to a terrifying 90-minute ordeal in a secluded spot near Doncaster in April 2009.

Mr Justice Keith sentenced the brothers to an indefinite detention with a minimum term of five years for the brutal assault. But the sentence provoked criticism, with commentators and children’s charities suggesting it was wrong that the boys could be released before their 16th birthdays

Born in 1944, the son of the late Radio 2 broadcaster Alan Keith, Brian Richard Keith was educated at University College School in Hampstead before going on to Lincoln College, Oxford and then Harvard Law School. He was called to the Bar in 1968 and took silk in 1989.